Commons talk:Wiki Loves Pride 2019

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contest start date

Hi all, @Sumanth699, Another Believer: any chance to bring the contest start date forward by one day (or two hours)? Commons:Wiki Loves Pride 2019 defines it as 17 June 2019 (00:01 UTC). ๐Ÿ˜ข I uploaded over 100 photos starting at 16 June 2019 22:00 UTC. Commons:Wiki Loves Pride 2019/Rules does not precisely specify the start date, i.e., considering the timezone en:UTC+12:00, my uploads would be after the official start. ๐Ÿ˜‰ Thanks! โ€“Simon04 (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Pharos: Bringing this to your attention as well. -Another Believer (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@Simon04, Another Believer: Yes, all photos uploaded since June 1 should count as well, we're just using the "start date" for the period when it is being actively promoted.--Pharos (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
@Pharos, Another Believer: Awesome, thank you! ๐ŸŒˆ โ€“Simon04 (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Is it safe for us to upload images of our LGBT community engaging in '๐Ÿ˜—' action? Not referring to sexual images or anything like that! Kiowa17 (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kiowa17: Yes, of course there is no rule against kissing. This is after all in part a sequel to the Commons:Wiki Loves Love 2019 contest.--Pharos (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Endorsement

This Is An Amazing Way To Celebrate Diversity And Inclusion. Regardless of Whether or Not I Enter Any Of These Contests, Please Consider Me As A Lifelong Supporter.....Thank You Wikipedia For Conceiving This Amazingly Genius And Beautiful Initiative, as well as The Related Contests......You Totally Rock! S. Please let me know if you all decide to Add A Merchandise Line For This And If So, where I can purchase the Merch:)- Very Respectfully, Regina๐Ÿณ๏ธโ€๐ŸŒˆ๐ŸŒˆ๐Ÿญ๐Ÿฌ๐Ÿก๐Ÿฅ ๐ŸŽค๐ŸŽง๐ŸŽโ™‹๏ธโ˜ฏ๏ธ๐Ÿ•‰โ˜ฎ๏ธโšœ๏ธโ™ฟ๏ธ๐ŸŽต๐ŸŽถโ™ฅ๏ธโœจ๐ŸŒŸโญ๏ธ๐ŸŒ๐ŸŒšโ˜€๏ธ๐Ÿคœ๐Ÿค›๐Ÿฝ๐Ÿค๐Ÿ’‹๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿพ๐Ÿค™๐ŸคŸ๐ŸผโœŒ๐Ÿพ๐Ÿ†๐ŸŽ‰๐Ÿฅณ๐Ÿ˜๐Ÿฅฐ๐Ÿ˜๐Ÿคฉ๐ŸŽŠ๐ŸŽ€๐Ÿ’˜๐Ÿ’“๐Ÿ’—๐Ÿฅ‡๐Ÿ’–๐Ÿ’™๐Ÿ’•๐Ÿ’›๐Ÿ˜Š๐Ÿงก๐Ÿ’š๐Ÿ’•โ˜ฏ๏ธ๐Ÿ’Ÿโค๏ธ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿพ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿพ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿพ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿพ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿพ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿพ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿพ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿพ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿพ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿพ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿพ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿพ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿพ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿพ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿพ๐Ÿ‘ Thesongstress (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia taking POV?

Extended content

I'm pretty amazed that "Wiki Loves Pride" is a thing. While the sentiment is admirable, it is also incredibly divisive and POV. NPOV is a core ethic of Wikipedia, so how is this a thing, no matter how good the cause? Epachamo (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Respectful Question: Doesnโ€™t Wikipedia have a right to create and/or Support A Cause under its Banner the same as, for example, IHOP supports Breast Cancer Awareness by doing fundraisers? Thesongstress (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Couple of things. Wikimedia Commons is not Wikipedia. Some of Wikimedia projects have a strict neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, but in example Commons does not have it. It doesn't have No original research or notability policies either. (see. Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view) It is common media file resource for all Wikimedia projects so if somebody wants to collect photos about events (like pride) then go for it. There is also lot of different wiki loves something photo competitions or photo hunts so it is business as usual too. --Zache (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
The distinction between Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia is lost to the average reader. Especially when the banners saying, "Wiki loves pride" is on top of Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia Commons values should not bleed over to Wikipedia and vice versa. Otherwise there is no distinction. I also want to be very clear, I have absolutely no problem with the drive/pride/etc, just with the endorsement by wikipedia. Epachamo (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Yep, drives to add content on any given particular topic to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia are most definitely a thing. And when content is underrepresented, as is the case with LGBTQ+-related content (people, events, etc etc), all the more reason to make it a collaborative thing that we give extra attention to together. It seems odd to question Wiki Loves Pride as being POV or divisive, and not Wiki Loves Monuments or Wiki Loves Earth or any of the other topics that a volunteer may choose to focus on adding content about (but, what about all the people who hate nature! should we stop adding pictures of Earth too!? :) ...we probably don't want to go down that road for any cluster of useful content). It's just as educational and important to have lots of good content about LGBTQ+ people, events, issues, etc as it is to have lots of good photos of monuments, or women, or any of the other Wiki Loves topics that happen on Commons. Big thanks to the organizers for putting together this year's drive! Seeeko (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
+1 to Zache and Seeeko. This seems exactly the kinds of efforts and contributions we should be encouraging to support the significant knowledge gaps in our Wikimedia content (on Commons and elsewhere) of people, places, events, issues... that are currently under-represented. This is one critical way to improve our projects! Thanks to those who were responsible for organising this drive. Anasuyas (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Monuments and Earth are not at all controversial. Loving monuments and earth ARE the neutral point of view. That is not true with Pride unfortunately: [[1]]. Would you feel it OK if wikipedia had a content drive for something that you were completely opposed to? What about "Wikipedia loves rights of the unborn" or "Wikipedia loves Mormons"? Would those be ok? I don't think so. Let me give you an example of why: I have a father who is very much opposed to Pride, Gay Marriage, etc. I would love it if he would read a well researched, referenced and written Wikipedia article that could open his eyes a little wider and dispel his genuine misconceptions. If he were to go to Homosexuality and see "Wikipedia loves Pride" at the top, he would be predisposed to be suspicious of the entire article. I truly believe that this well meaning project hurts the ultimate aims of wikipedia, and even hurts the ultimate aims of Pride movement. The intended audience self selects out, and we are left preaching to the choir. Epachamo (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Historic preservationism and environmentalism are indeed both potentially controversial areas with related policy debates. The tradition of meta:Wiki Loves X community outreach campaigns goes back many years, and the intention is improve topical coverage, not advocate policy, e.g. for expanding parkland. Perhaps this could be more clearly explained on the front of the page. I see no reason why we wouldn't have a "Loves" campaign connected to LDS history at least and I can think of several Wikimedians who would be interested in both that and the Pride campaign.--Pharos (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
The day that I see something like "Wiki Loves the Vietnam War" or "Wiki Loves Mormons" (not just Mormon History), I will be inclined to agree with you. I would also be inclined to agree with you if their truly were a dearth of quality Pride articles. The truth is, "Pride" articles are excellent and among the best on wikipedia! They are not under-represented. Not saying that there is no room for improvement, but why not find an area where wikipedia is truly lacking? Epachamo (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Does the "Wiki Loves Pride" banner only display to wikipedia editors? If so, I would be less inclined to disagree with the drive. I think wikipedians can get the distinction. I think my whole beef might be with the "Wiki Loves X" movement to be honest. Perhaps a more benign name would be different. Epachamo (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Edits to project page (23 Jun 2019)

In an effort to improve clarity and coherence, I made several edits to the project page (diff).

Please see my post on the WikiProject LGBT Studies Talk page for context: Wiki Loves Pride 2019 currently lacks coherence & clarity.

Markworthen (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

LGBT, LGBT+, LGBTQ+, etc.

Have we (sites across the Wikimedia universe) decided on a consistent acronym for our fabulous community?

A related point: I used LGBTQ+-related and LGBTQ+ for the edits I made. I would be happy to change that acronym to another one if requested (or feel free to make the changes yourself).

Thanks! Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional masculine pronouns are fine.) 16:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Markworthen: This is probably up for discussion, but since 2014 LGBT+ has been most common in wiki organizing. The reason is that "LGBT" was the term which seemed most established at the advent of global online conversation, and the + catches future trends for any language or cultural concept. We wanted stability in search engines which would treat variations as separate terms, so having more than one term disrupts search. We should probably develop and publish documentation showing the options and the decision making process because this issue comes up repeatedly. There are 100 places to discuss this but probably the most central place to make a policy proposal and coordinate a decision is at the talk page of meta:Wikimedia LGBT+. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Blue Raspberry! I appreciate your well-informed and very helpful response. :0) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional masculine pronouns are fine.) 16:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I would also add that there is likely translation issues, and I guess reusing a english acronym is maybe not great everywhere given the stance of some people that's a "lifestyle from occident". So each linguistic version of the encyclopedia would use different words. For example, I know that in Haiti, the local organisations tend to speak of the "m community", cf this article (in french), to reuse native language rather than foreign ones from colonial power. --Misc (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Scope

Looks like there are a lot of people uploading selfies and other personal images not in COM:SCOPE (i.e. no discernible connection to, say, pride events or other educational subjects). I see several have been nominated for deletion already. Perhaps it makes sense to wait until the end of the campaign to combine them into one. Perhaps there is already a process in place for this sort of large campaign? :) — Rhododendrites talk |  18:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but I would accept a wider scope for such a subject, e.g. pictures of a couple would be within the scope (example). Regards, Yann (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I do think that some selfies are appropriate even if they're not from a pride event, e.g. if they are in another way about LGBT identity or expression. That said, there are selfies and also other types of photos (for example, there's actually an artificial eyeball) that were probably uploaded by people who did not understand the contest and just had discovered this as their first opportunity to upload something to Wikimedia Commons.--Pharos (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Central notice discussion

The Wiki Loves Pride campaign included meta:CentralNotice advertising on Wikimedia projects. CentralNotice is a service to alert a general audience to the existence of a Wikimedia campaign.

See the application for central notice at meta:CentralNotice/Request/Wiki Loves Pride 2019.

Typically CentralNotice requests are a formality, and projects which meet the requirements get passed with little discussion. Typical criteria examined are probably the likely popularity of the event, the need to reach a large audience, the technical and social capacity to run the event, and a history of Wikimedia engagement in the concept. In my view Wiki Loves Pride meets all those things. Unusually, some critical discussion has veered into whether promotion of LGBT+ issues merits special consideration as subject matter. Wikipedia's content is supposed to be neutral. I would describe what is happening at the noticeboard as a consideration of how promoting LGBT+ content development might be activism beyond the norms of routine content development. In different ways this objection gets raised every year of Wiki Loves Pride.

I wanted to share this here because that conversation is so tied to this campaign, and I thought that these two should link to each other. That page already links here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Policy regarding blurring face ?

Hi,

I took a few pictures of Paris Pride this afternoon, and I wonder if Commons has a policy for blurring faces. I know that some people may not be out to their family, and wouldn't want being seen in the crowd. I also did see people requesting to blur pictures on twitter. Is it ok if I do that manually before uploading, should I do something special post upload ? --Misc (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Misc, please see COM:PEOPLE. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Being at a Pride event doesn't mean you are LGBTQ. My Mum for example. --Fรฆ (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
True, but the moment you upload anything here, you're not just uploading it as part of the encyclopaedia. You're agreeing to an overbroad, free commercial licence which allows anyone to take that image and use it, for profit, for pretty much anything. One of the more infamous examples (back in 2008) was a photo a scout leader took of his group to illustrate the English-language Wikipedia's w:boy scout article; for-profit wiki farm Wikia then used that free licence to take that image for use in a wiki eroticising spanking. Basically, you've created a stock photo... and that has consequences in terms of personality rights. Subsequent versions of the Creative Commons licence have only made the problems worse. If you don't understand what you're "agreeing" to, don't upload. Period. There's no legal means to undo that mistake. Carlb (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
In the U.S. (not sure about other countries), without a model release signed by the subject(s), a photo containing human subjects cannot be legally used for commercial purposes. Not that that stops unscrupulous (or simply ignorant) people from using such photos illegally, but that is not a problem unique to Commons. Funcrunch (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Tools to visualize stats

Commons:Wiki Loves Earth is a campaign inviting the upload of media showcasing the natural environment. In 2019 it is a May - June event. Wikimedia Commons has many such campaign like Wiki Loves Pride and Wiki Loves Earth which all invite users to upload files.

Despite the technical similarity of these campaigns we do not have a standard tool suite which applies to all of them. This means that in the setup of these campaigns, the organizers collect the tools they like and which they can learn to operate then apply them to the campaign as they have time.

I was looking at this tool which generated an automated report of Wiki Loves Earth outcomes - tools.wmflabs.org/wikiloves/earth. This is an implementation of the "Wiki Loves Competitions" (currently down) toolsuite listed at Hay's Tools directory. The code is at Jean-Frรฉdรฉric's repository.

I wish that we could apply that competition tool to the Wiki Loves Pride media campaign. I do not know how and the documentation and process for implementing it is technical beyond my easy ability. More generally, I wish it were easier for anyone to apply this tool suite and other tools to any media campaign that they organized, whether global like Pride and Earth or even local in their town.

If we want this and other tools developed, the usual options are find a volunteer to do it, apply for funding at meta:Grants:Start to sponsor a developer to do it, or make a request in the meta:Community Wishlist Survey to get Wikimedia Foundation staff time to do this. These campaigns seem to please people but if we had tools to generate data visualizing the outcomes we would have an easier time discussing and improving them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)